Motlagh v. Nikakhtar
Published: Sep. 13, 2001 | Result Date: Jun. 26, 2001 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: KC034221 Bench Decision – $15,135
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Pomona
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Facts
In this case, plaintiff Ali Motlagh sued defendants Ahmad Nikakhtar, Saideh Nikakhtar and California Petroleum
Exchange Inc. for breach of contract and fraud. The suit arose from transactions relating to the sale of a
business and the property upon which the business was located. The plaintiff paid the defendants $110,000 for
the purchase of the business and additional money for the inventory contained in the gas station business.
The sale of business agreement was executed on Oct. 23, 1998 and included equipment, gasoline, oil and food
products in the gas station, which was located at 2301 East Foothill Blvd. in Glendora. The sale of the
business was allegedly contingent upon the licensing agreement with Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc.
On July 22, 1999, Texaco informed the plaintiff that they would not renew the lease with the defendant.
However, on July 26, 1999, Texaco offered to sell the entire station to the defendant. The plaintiff agreed to
purchase the station. However, the plaintiff did not qualify for a loan to purchase the property.
Accordingly , the defendant allegedly agreed to procure a loan for the plaintiff using the
defendantÆs good credit. The plaintiff received a qualified commitment for a loan subject to the
plaintiff paying all rent payments due for the operation of the gas station from July 1999 through
November 1999. However, the plaintiff allegedly failed to pay the back rent and failed to provide
financial operating statements for the business. As a result, the loan was not approved.
Settlement Discussions
The defendants offered $50,000 to settle this matter, which was rejected by the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought $168,500 in damages. In closing argument at trial, counsel for the defendant agreed to pay the $15,135 in settlement of the claim.
Damages
The plaintiff sought $168,500 in damages.
Result
The judge awarded the plaintiff $15,135, which represented the refunded escrow deposit. The defendants were awarded attorney fees for $23,843. The plaintiff was awarded costs for $302 representing all costs prior to service of defendantsÆ C.C.P. Section 998 offer.
Other Information
The fraud cause of action was dismissed pursuant to California C.C.P. Section 631.8. On the breach of contract claim, the plaintiff was only awarded the amount offered in the C.C.P. Section 998 offer, which was $15,135.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390